Doctor Who has just fixed one of it's biggest mistakes

Comments

"What makes it harder is that, as I've also already said, bisexuality is the invisible sexuality. You'll get seen as straight or gay depending on the person you're with, and this means that bi people often have to work much harder and have to explicitly state their sexuality if they want it to be recognised."

You might have noticed (and you didn't) that I specifically spoke from the point of view of that "person you're with". And for that person, it might feel and doubtlessly feels quite cruel to be made as hyperaware as you insist it to be that they are essentially transit points between the phases of your bi-sexuality. Exactly because you want to be explicitly recognized as having attraction to persons you're NOT with. While it is implicitly true for nearly every relationship, obviously, the very vocality of bi-people about it, makes any relationship with you a potential (psychological for sure) menage-a-trois, and no wonder many bow out.

I noticed it very much and even pointed it out to you - as being about identity, not datability. Your error here is in wrongly saying that bisexuality has 'phases'. It doesn't. You don't go through phases of liking men more, and liking women more. If I like someone, I like them. The same as anyone else. Bisexuality just denotes my gender preferences more broadly. It denotes my preference, not actual attractions to actual people. Being open about that and owning it for myself isn't cruelty on my part, so if someone else was so insecure they couldn't deal with it that'd be their problem - not that I'd likely end up stuck with such a problematic person in the first place.

The overwhelming majority of gay men would get that. The entirety of bisexual women would get that. Heterosexual women are more hit-and-miss about it, and are about the only source from which people tend to "bow out"... but their problem isn't actually with their partner, it's suddenly being forced to see the reality that non-straight people are forced into living with. I don't suddenly become heterosexual if I'm with a woman, and I'm not going to suddenly be quiet about bi issues or experiences for her sake. That's cruel and psychologically unhealthy for me.

"What makes it harder is that, as I've also already said, bisexuality is the invisible sexuality. You'll get seen as straight or gay depending on the person you're with, and this means that bi people often have to work much harder and have to explicitly state their sexuality if they want it to be recognised."

You might have noticed (and you didn't) that I specifically spoke from the point of view of that "person you're with". And for that person, it might feel and doubtlessly feels quite cruel to be made as hyperaware as you insist it to be that they are essentially transit points between the phases of your bi-sexuality. Exactly because you want to be explicitly recognized as having attraction to persons you're NOT with. While it is implicitly true for nearly every relationship, obviously, the very vocality of bi-people about it, makes any relationship with you a potential (psychological for sure) menage-a-trois, and no wonder many bow out.

I noticed it very much and even pointed it out to you - as being about identity, not datability. Your error here is in wrongly saying that bisexuality has 'phases'. It doesn't. You don't go through phases of liking men more, and liking women more. If I like someone, I like them. The same as anyone else. Bisexuality just denotes my gender preferences more broadly. It denotes my preference, not actual attractions to actual people. Being open about that and owning it for myself isn't cruelty on my part, so if someone else was so insecure they couldn't deal with it that'd be their problem - not that I'd likely end up stuck with such a problematic person in the first place.

The overwhelming majority of gay men would get that. The entirety of bisexual women would get that. Heterosexual women are more hit-and-miss about it, and are about the only source from which people tend to "bow out"... but their problem isn't actually with their partner, it's suddenly being forced to see the reality that non-straight people are forced into living with. I don't suddenly become heterosexual if I'm with a woman, and I'm not going to suddenly be quiet about bi issues or experiences for her sake. That's cruel and psychologically unhealthy for me.

As much as I am apparently not quite able to replace myself into your perspective, you're likewise not really grasping the psychological reality of, say, a straight person (woman, closest to my own reality) being in a relationship with a bi-man. Yes, I (we, women) expect you to 'become' heterosexual if you're with us - for all intents and purposes. Note the brackets: these are the same brackets to be used when (monogamous) women expect heterosexual partners to 'become' solely attracted to the woman they are with. Quite obviously, it is impossible and unrealistic to expect that; what really is expected, is the second part of the same sentence - for all intents and purposes. And that really means - to not assert and claim other allegiances, even potential ones, to other identities, excluding, or even as much as complementing the existing heterosexual bond between you and her. To put crudely, don't blather about having the 'right' to be loud about your experiences and issues and potential futures with other women solely on the basis that you're a hetero male, for it would be 'psychologically unhealthy' for a guy to squash that part of his hetero male identity. And likewise, we would expect the same from you, only insert 'other women and men' in the sentence above, and replace heteromale with bi-male.

I’m so very grateful to your text dumps - I enjoy reading posts where thoughts and words are put into a coherent narrative. You’ve always been an interesting read. Never shy away from doing that.

I never do! Ha ha.

Thanks for saying this. I'm very self-aware of my walls of text, but also firmly believe that if something is worth saying, it's worth saying properly People are obviously free to skip over them should they wish.

As much as I am apparently not quite able to replace myself into your perspective, you're likewise not really grasping the psychological reality of, say, a straight person (woman, closest to my own reality) being in a relationship with a bi-man. Yes, I (we, women) expect you to 'become' heterosexual if you're with us - for all intents and purposes. Note the brackets: these are the same brackets to be used when (monogamous) women expect heterosexual partners to 'become' solely attracted to the woman they are with. Quite obviously, it is impossible and unrealistic to expect that; what really is expected, is the second part of the same sentence - for all intents and purposes. And that really means - to not assert and claim other allegiances, even potential ones, to other identities, excluding, or even as much as complementing the existing heterosexual bond between you and her. To put crudely, don't blather about having the 'right' to be loud about your experiences and issues and potential futures with other women solely on the basis that you're a hetero male, for it would be 'psychologically unhealthy' for a guy to squash that part of his hetero male identity. And likewise, we would expect the same from you, only insert 'other women and men' in the sentence above, and replace heteromale with bi-male.

P.S. Bi-people do seem to experience cycles of attraction, btw.

I'm not grasping the psychological reality? Because it isn't my job to grasp the psychological reality of straight people. I can be decent, kind, empathetic... but it doesn't come at the expense of getting to be myself - no one that expects that is worth being around. As such I'll say, I am quite glad that I'm not a bisexual man to have known someone like you - with some expectation to "become heterosexual" when with or around you. If you had any idea of the sort of harmful biphobic rubbish that that is, and what it actually says about you and your insecurities, rather than the guy, you'd rethink.

You also bring up monogamy, which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion (but as always is something clueless people tend to bring up around bi people, ignorantly assuming we'll only ever be satisfied with some sort of three-way arrangement or some other sort of false stereotype). So yes, I will "blather about" my right, because whether you've recognised it or not, your views are biphobic. You meet a bi guy you like and expect him to effectively ("all intents and purposes") erase that aspect of himself so it fits in with what you're comfortable with, with your view. It's called oppression, and it's harmful and disgusting.

P.S. You're not going to succeed at telling a bisexual person than you, a non-bisexual person, is more aware of bi experiences than they are. All you've done is prove the point that I've made in this thread - that bi people do indeed face unique issues that gay people don't have to contend with. Your views are one such issue. You are wrong. Deal with it.

I’m so very grateful to your text dumps - I enjoy reading posts where thoughts and words are put into a coherent narrative. You’ve always been an interesting read. Never shy away from doing that.

I never do! Ha ha.

Thanks for saying this. I'm very self-aware of my walls of text, but also firmly believe that if something is worth saying, it's worth saying properly People are obviously free to skip over them should they wish.

As much as I am apparently not quite able to replace myself into your perspective, you're likewise not really grasping the psychological reality of, say, a straight person (woman, closest to my own reality) being in a relationship with a bi-man. Yes, I (we, women) expect you to 'become' heterosexual if you're with us - for all intents and purposes. Note the brackets: these are the same brackets to be used when (monogamous) women expect heterosexual partners to 'become' solely attracted to the woman they are with. Quite obviously, it is impossible and unrealistic to expect that; what really is expected, is the second part of the same sentence - for all intents and purposes. And that really means - to not assert and claim other allegiances, even potential ones, to other identities, excluding, or even as much as complementing the existing heterosexual bond between you and her. To put crudely, don't blather about having the 'right' to be loud about your experiences and issues and potential futures with other women solely on the basis that you're a hetero male, for it would be 'psychologically unhealthy' for a guy to squash that part of his hetero male identity. And likewise, we would expect the same from you, only insert 'other women and men' in the sentence above, and replace heteromale with bi-male.

P.S. Bi-people do seem to experience cycles of attraction, btw.

I'm not grasping the psychological reality? Because it isn't my job to grasp the psychological reality of straight people. I can be decent, kind, empathetic... but it doesn't come at the expense of getting to be myself - no one that expects that is worth being around. As such I'll say, I am quite glad that I'm not a bisexual man to have known someone like you - with some expectation to "become heterosexual" when with or around you. If you had any idea of the sort of harmful biphobic rubbish that that is, and what it actually says about you and your insecurities, rather than the guy, you'd rethink.

You also bring up monogamy, which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion (but as always is something clueless people tend to bring up around bi people, ignorantly assuming we'll only ever be satisfied with some sort of three-way arrangement or some other sort of false stereotype). So yes, I will "blather about" my right, because whether you've recognised it or not, your views are biphobic. You meet a bi guy you like and expect him to effectively ("all intents and purposes") erase that aspect of himself so it fits in with what you're comfortable with, with your view. It's called oppression, and it's harmful and disgusting.

P.S. You're not going to succeed at telling a bisexual person than you, a non-bisexual person, is more aware of bi experiences than they are. All you've done is prove the point that I've made in this thread - that bi people do indeed face unique issues that gay people don't have to contend with. Your views are one such issue. You are wrong. Deal with it.

Abomination, shame on you for claiming to know your own sexual preferences.

How ignorant of me. I should have just listened to the straight person all along! Yet another sin to add to my list, so really living up to my name on here!

If you say that it is not your job to grasp the psychological reality of straight people, I could say exactly the same about bisexual people. Is that it? The only thing that I want you to understand that what you feel are your needs and your rights, might and does feel quite cruel to your potential straight partner! It is a valid position to have, after all, what we're both doing it offering the perspective - how it looks and feels from the other side. From our point of view, by being vocal about the 'identity' you're constantly reminding that there's something your partner cannot give you. It is not about monogamy ( I never alleged that bi-people cannot be faithful), it is about the psychological state of mind which can entertain more desires, fantasies, future visions than any one person of either sex can fulfil. And while wishing and desiring more than one has got is obviously true for all of us, an openly bisexual person, per definition, finds himself trying to convince his partner that it is possible to square a circle, so to say. It may look feasible to you yourself, but I think you're able to understand that it will always seem less plausible and moreso frustrating to the partner?

I’m so very grateful to your text dumps - I enjoy reading posts where thoughts and words are put into a coherent narrative. You’ve always been an interesting read. Never shy away from doing that.

I never do! Ha ha.

Thanks for saying this. I'm very self-aware of my walls of text, but also firmly believe that if something is worth saying, it's worth saying properly People are obviously free to skip over them should they wish.

As much as I am apparently not quite able to replace myself into your perspective, you're likewise not really grasping the psychological reality of, say, a straight person (woman, closest to my own reality) being in a relationship with a bi-man. Yes, I (we, women) expect you to 'become' heterosexual if you're with us - for all intents and purposes. Note the brackets: these are the same brackets to be used when (monogamous) women expect heterosexual partners to 'become' solely attracted to the woman they are with. Quite obviously, it is impossible and unrealistic to expect that; what really is expected, is the second part of the same sentence - for all intents and purposes. And that really means - to not assert and claim other allegiances, even potential ones, to other identities, excluding, or even as much as complementing the existing heterosexual bond between you and her. To put crudely, don't blather about having the 'right' to be loud about your experiences and issues and potential futures with other women solely on the basis that you're a hetero male, for it would be 'psychologically unhealthy' for a guy to squash that part of his hetero male identity. And likewise, we would expect the same from you, only insert 'other women and men' in the sentence above, and replace heteromale with bi-male.

P.S. Bi-people do seem to experience cycles of attraction, btw.

I'm not grasping the psychological reality? Because it isn't my job to grasp the psychological reality of straight people. I can be decent, kind, empathetic... but it doesn't come at the expense of getting to be myself - no one that expects that is worth being around. As such I'll say, I am quite glad that I'm not a bisexual man to have known someone like you - with some expectation to "become heterosexual" when with or around you. If you had any idea of the sort of harmful biphobic rubbish that that is, and what it actually says about you and your insecurities, rather than the guy, you'd rethink.

You also bring up monogamy, which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion (but as always is something clueless people tend to bring up around bi people, ignorantly assuming we'll only ever be satisfied with some sort of three-way arrangement or some other sort of false stereotype). So yes, I will "blather about" my right, because whether you've recognised it or not, your views are biphobic. You meet a bi guy you like and expect him to effectively ("all intents and purposes") erase that aspect of himself so it fits in with what you're comfortable with, with your view. It's called oppression, and it's harmful and disgusting.

P.S. You're not going to succeed at telling a bisexual person than you, a non-bisexual person, is more aware of bi experiences than they are. All you've done is prove the point that I've made in this thread - that bi people do indeed face unique issues that gay people don't have to contend with. Your views are one such issue. You are wrong. Deal with it.

Abomination, shame on you for claiming to know your own sexual preferences.

How ignorant of me. I should have just listened to the straight person all along! Yet another sin to add to my list, so really living up to my name on here!

If you say that it is not your job to grasp the psychological reality of straight people, I could say exactly the same about bisexual people. Is that it? The only thing that I want you to understand that what you feel are your needs and your rights, might and does feel quite cruel to your potential straight partner! It is a valid position to have, after all, what we're both doing it offering the perspective - how it looks and feels from the other side. From our point of view, by being vocal about the 'identity' you're constantly reminding that there's something your partner cannot give you. It is not about monogamy ( I never alleged that bi-people cannot be faithful), it is about the psychological state of mind which can entertain more desires, fantasies, future visions than any one person of either sex can fulfil. And while wishing and desiring more than one has got is obviously true for all of us, an openly bisexual person, per definition, finds himself trying to convince his partner that it is possible to square a circle, so to say. It may look feasible to you yourself, but I think you're able to understand that it will always seem less plausible and moreso frustrating to the partner?

As a straight guy who's been with some bi girls (and have known other such pairings), this is a complete non-issue. If you love someone, then you support them in expressing who they are. A bi person in a relationship mentioning that they are bisexual is no different than if a straight person in a relationship tells someone that they are straight. I've been to many gay clubs in my time and consequently have had people assume I was gay because of that. So I'd often have to correct them with "oh I'm straight, I'm just here with friends." or "I'm straight, my partner is bi," or even just "I'm straight and on my own and I'm here to see an act that's performing."

If I happen to be in a relationship whilst making those statements, I'm not professing some desire to copulate with other women or announcing to my partner that I find other women attractive. If they were to turn around and say "I don't like you telling people you're straight because it makes it look like you're trying to play the field," some other such nonsense, then that would be their problem to deal with. If they cared about me, then they wouldn't have issue with me being clear about my sexuality. I doubt anyone would even question what I'm saying here, as its so flipping obvious that I'm doing nothing wrong. But that's because I'm straight and its easy for other straight people to relate.

But the situation is EXACTLY THE SAME in reverse. If you have psychological issues with dating a bisexual person, then that's your problem, not theirs.

For what it's worth, the editing tool incorrectly quoted me as saying the comments that @Helbore posted and you put your reply to in the latter half of your post.

Though I share the sarcasm that I believe @Helbore was trying to inject to lighten the mood.

If one human loves another human, and one of those humans finds another different human attractive and acts upon it, then that is not down to sexuality.

It's down to infidelity.

To make the assumption that a partner is likely to stray because they are attracted to other people says more about the person making the assumption.

Or in fairness, perhaps says more about the previous experiences of the partner making the assumptions which may have left justified emotional scars.

We are all human. We can all hurt. We can all be let down by someone we love.

So let's all hug it out, be friends, and go and have some fish fingers and custard for tea x

Ultimately that's the truth. Does it matter who loves who, as long as it makes them happy?

People cant help feeling they way they do - and it makes not one jot of a difference whether you are gay, straight, pansexian/bisexual, whatever. What IS unnatural is suppressing your feelings for whatever reason.

For what it's worth, the editing tool incorrectly quoted me as saying the comments that @Helbore posted and you put your reply to in the latter half of your post.

Though I share the sarcasm that I believe @Helbore was trying to inject to lighten the mood.

If one human loves another human, and one of those humans finds another different human attractive and acts upon it, then that is not down to sexuality.

It's down to infidelity.

To make the assumption that a partner is likely to stray because they are attracted to other people says more about the person making the assumption.

Or in fairness, perhaps says more about the previous experiences of the partner making the assumptions which may have left justified emotional scars.

We are all human. We can all hurt. We can all be let down by someone we love.

So let's all hug it out, be friends, and go and have some fish fingers and custard for tea x

Ultimately that's the truth. Does it matter who loves who, as long as it makes them happy?

People cant help feeling they way they do - and it makes not one jot of a difference whether you are gay, straight, pansexian/bisexual, whatever. What IS unnatural is suppressing your feelings for whatever reason.

Everyone has the right to love, and be loved.

Are we now down to the basic platitudes, which are harmless but also meaningless, like when people really really love each other, whatever orientation, they won't stray and will bravely stay together etc. etc. ? Sigh.

For what it's worth, the editing tool incorrectly quoted me as saying the comments that @Helbore posted and you put your reply to in the latter half of your post.

Though I share the sarcasm that I believe @Helbore was trying to inject to lighten the mood.

If one human loves another human, and one of those humans finds another different human attractive and acts upon it, then that is not down to sexuality.

It's down to infidelity.

To make the assumption that a partner is likely to stray because they are attracted to other people says more about the person making the assumption.

Or in fairness, perhaps says more about the previous experiences of the partner making the assumptions which may have left justified emotional scars.

We are all human. We can all hurt. We can all be let down by someone we love.

So let's all hug it out, be friends, and go and have some fish fingers and custard for tea x

Ultimately that's the truth. Does it matter who loves who, as long as it makes them happy?

People cant help feeling they way they do - and it makes not one jot of a difference whether you are gay, straight, pansexian/bisexual, whatever. What IS unnatural is suppressing your feelings for whatever reason.

Everyone has the right to love, and be loved.

Are we now down to the basic platitudes, which are harmless but also meaningless, like when people really really love each other, whatever orientation, they won't stray and will bravely stay together etc. etc. ? Sigh.

Don't get your point. Lots of people find their partner and that's it....remain loyal and that's that. There are also a lot of people who have affairs, it doesn't work out, ends in ,splitting up, divorce etc. That's just a fact. But that's just yer actual humans for ya. Isn't going to be dependant on what particular sexual orientation you are.

For what it's worth, the editing tool incorrectly quoted me as saying the comments that @Helbore posted and you put your reply to in the latter half of your post.

Though I share the sarcasm that I believe @Helbore was trying to inject to lighten the mood.

If one human loves another human, and one of those humans finds another different human attractive and acts upon it, then that is not down to sexuality.

It's down to infidelity.

To make the assumption that a partner is likely to stray because they are attracted to other people says more about the person making the assumption.

Or in fairness, perhaps says more about the previous experiences of the partner making the assumptions which may have left justified emotional scars.

We are all human. We can all hurt. We can all be let down by someone we love.

So let's all hug it out, be friends, and go and have some fish fingers and custard for tea x

Ultimately that's the truth. Does it matter who loves who, as long as it makes them happy?

People cant help feeling they way they do - and it makes not one jot of a difference whether you are gay, straight, pansexian/bisexual, whatever. What IS unnatural is suppressing your feelings for whatever reason.

Everyone has the right to love, and be loved.

Are we now down to the basic platitudes, which are harmless but also meaningless, like when people really really love each other, whatever orientation, they won't stray and will bravely stay together etc. etc. ? Sigh.

For what it's worth, the editing tool incorrectly quoted me as saying the comments that @Helbore posted and you put your reply to in the latter half of your post.

Though I share the sarcasm that I believe @Helbore was trying to inject to lighten the mood.

If one human loves another human, and one of those humans finds another different human attractive and acts upon it, then that is not down to sexuality.

It's down to infidelity.

To make the assumption that a partner is likely to stray because they are attracted to other people says more about the person making the assumption.

Or in fairness, perhaps says more about the previous experiences of the partner making the assumptions which may have left justified emotional scars.

We are all human. We can all hurt. We can all be let down by someone we love.

So let's all hug it out, be friends, and go and have some fish fingers and custard for tea x

Ultimately that's the truth. Does it matter who loves who, as long as it makes them happy?

People cant help feeling they way they do - and it makes not one jot of a difference whether you are gay, straight, pansexian/bisexual, whatever. What IS unnatural is suppressing your feelings for whatever reason.

Everyone has the right to love, and be loved.

Are we now down to the basic platitudes, which are harmless but also meaningless, like when people really really love each other, whatever orientation, they won't stray and will bravely stay together etc. etc. ? Sigh.

No, we're down to the point where you are the only one trying to find a negative in a thread of general positivity. If that makes you sigh, then you have my sympathies.

Are we now down to the basic platitudes, which are harmless but also meaningless, like when people really really love each other, whatever orientation, they won't stray and will bravely stay together etc. etc. ? Sigh.

We're down to the point where you received a response (from @Helbore ) that provided a better-worded and more succint response to what you had said (and expresses my sentiments more or less exactly) than I could have written myself.

If my openness about my bisexuality is pereceived by someone else to be cruel, or is somehow a source of insecurity or distress for them, then myself and that person aren't ever going to even reach the sort of point where there is an 'us', because their attitude towards me really isn't my problem. And whilst I don't particularly care for speaking for anyone else, I have confidence (having worked hard to accept this part of myself, which is something you as a straight woman are privileged enough to have never had to do) that those around me agree as well to some extent or other. Whether it's other LGBT people who understand quite a bit about the extensive issues brought up in this thread, or whether it's people such as those on this thread that will openly admit to maybe not understanding but nonetheless have the decency to listen, to try to learn, but above all else to show acceptance and a mutual decency between each other, regardless of their differences. That's sadly worlds apart from your atittude of stifling all that's different and insisting that anyone different must "for all intents and purposes" repress themselves so that they can align with how you feel... making it all about you when you've not actually had to do anything.

For just a small dose of perspective, you get to assert that you're a straight woman, which is great for you. Me? Merely asserting I'm bisexual in a relatively anonymous place such as this, risks vitriol, verbal abuse, insults, rejection... and that's true every single time I do it. No matter that I might have posted here for years, never felt the need to mention it much before, and 99% of my posts about a TV show I happen to care a lot about, I risk losing the affinity of any individual person at any time just for stating something that you get to take for granted. How is it then, that the brilliant people in this thread - presumably with very different lived experiences, attitudes, and understandings - have managed to unite around a positive and constructive conversation whilst you have not? I would genuinely hope some reflection on that will help you join us in that positivity... believe me, the cynicism and insecurity just isn't worth the time.

Are we now down to the basic platitudes, which are harmless but also meaningless, like when people really really love each other, whatever orientation, they won't stray and will bravely stay together etc. etc. ? Sigh.

We're down to the point where you received a response (from @Helbore ) that provided a better-worded and more succint response to what you had said (and expresses my sentiments more or less exactly) than I could have written myself.

If my openness about my bisexuality is pereceived by someone else to be cruel, or is somehow a source of insecurity or distress for them, then myself and that person aren't ever going to even reach the sort of point where there is an 'us', because their attitude towards me really isn't my problem. And whilst I don't particularly care for speaking for anyone else, I have confidence (having worked hard to accept this part of myself, which is something you as a straight woman are privileged enough to have never had to do) that those around me agree as well to some extent or other. Whether it's other LGBT people who understand quite a bit about the extensive issues brought up in this thread, or whether it's people such as those on this thread that will openly admit to maybe not understanding but nonetheless have the decency to listen, to try to learn, but above all else to show acceptance and a mutual decency between each other, regardless of their differences. That's sadly worlds apart from your atittude of stifling all that's different and insisting that anyone different must "for all intents and purposes" repress themselves so that they can align with how you feel... making it all about you when you've not actually had to do anything.

For just a small dose of perspective, you get to assert that you're a straight woman, which is great for you. Me? Merely asserting I'm bisexual in a relatively anonymous place such as this, risks vitriol, verbal abuse, insults, rejection... and that's true every single time I do it. No matter that I might have posted here for years, never felt the need to mention it much before, and 99% of my posts about a TV show I happen to care a lot about, I risk losing the affinity of any individual person at any time just for stating something that you get to take for granted. How is it then, that the brilliant people in this thread - presumably with very different lived experiences, attitudes, and understandings - have managed to unite around a positive and constructive conversation whilst you have not? I would genuinely hope some reflection on that will help you join us in that positivity... believe me, the cynicism and insecurity just isn't worth the time.

That straight and gay people often find relationships with bi-parners problematic is just an unfortunate consequence of deep-seated, natural psychological insecurities: feelings of own inadequacy and doubts as to what extent said partner is in control of his/her choice for a partner of either of the sexes. These insecurities are valid and as understandable and your reluctance to accept them as valid. Mutual distrust isn't anybody's personal fault, human psyche is confusing, one's identity is often at odds with another's comfort zone.
I do not wish to continue this dispute, let's just return to quibbling about Doctor Who.

That straight and gay people often find relationships with bi-parners problematic is just an unfortunate consequence of deep-seated, natural psychological insecurities: feelings of own inadequacy and doubts as to what extent said partner is in control of his/her choice for a partner of either of the sexes. These insecurities are valid and as understandable and your reluctance to accept them as valid. Mutual distrust isn't anybody's personal fault, human psyche is confusing, one's identity is often at odds with another's comfort zone.
I do not wish to continue this dispute, let's just return to quibbling about Doctor Who.

The bit in bold, that's biphobia. As was your earlier ill-informed assertion that bisexual people go on some sort of cycle of attraction. Feel free to challenge yourself if you want, I've nothing more to contribute here.

That straight and gay people often find relationships with bi-parners problematic is just an unfortunate consequence of deep-seated, natural psychological insecurities: feelings of own inadequacy and doubts as to what extent said partner is in control of his/her choice for a partner of either of the sexes. These insecurities are valid and as understandable and your reluctance to accept them as valid. Mutual distrust isn't anybody's personal fault, human psyche is confusing, one's identity is often at odds with another's comfort zone.
I do not wish to continue this dispute, let's just return to quibbling about Doctor Who.

The bit in bold, that's biphobia. As was your earlier ill-informed assertion that bisexual people go on some sort of cycle of attraction. Feel free to challenge yourself if you want, I've nothing more to contribute here.

I agree, it's inaccurately expressed. I do not mean as much things that can be controlled as those that cannot be. Being faithful, one still can feel attraction; and your partner's latent attraction to the other sex than yours will always be smth. your cannot fully understand, don't share, and - least of all - fulfil. Ok, it shouldn't feel threatening, shouldn't be, but sorry, it just feels so and it is... It's nobody's fault, but you should understand that too. As I said, it is what you cannot control, is the most frustrating.
Re: cycles of attraction, in the few rare cases it happens (reddit is everyone's gossipy friend), it just happens. You're lucky when it's not your partner.

I don't care about LGBTQ etc when it comes to Doctor Who.
Doctor Who is a Sci-Fi programme which SHOULD be about the Doctor and his (or her) companions fighting monsters and baddies on distant planets.
Someone's sexuality shouldn't ever come into it in Doctor Who. If sexuality never came into it then that WOULD be a fair representation.

What are peoples problems these days.
One minute you've got a thread about Philip Schofield coming out as gay and most people are saying "I couldn't care if he's gay, why the big issue" etc.
Then you've got people making an issue about peoples sexuality in DOCTOR WHO of all programmes for God sake.

Chibnall seems very dated in his way of thinking two gay men kissing = ground breaking. Soaps have been doing
it for years now.

The push for a diversity agenda won't go away until it's no longer needed. There'll come a time in the future when a programme will show (for example) two men kissing and it'll seem no more unusual than showing a man and a woman kissing. After all, a few years ago showing a mixed race couple kissing would've ruffled lot of feathers, but not so much now.

It will NEVER look as normal as a man and woman kissing and the reason why is because 90+% of people in the UK are straight so how could it seem "no more unusual". My point is that for every time you see two men or two women kissing you'll probably see 90 opposite sex couples kissing.

Chibnall seems very dated in his way of thinking two gay men kissing = ground breaking. Soaps have been doing
it for years now.

The push for a diversity agenda won't go away until it's no longer needed. There'll come a time in the future when a programme will show (for example) two men kissing and it'll seem no more unusual than showing a man and a woman kissing. After all, a few years ago showing a mixed race couple kissing would've ruffled lot of feathers, but not so much now.

It will NEVER look as normal as a man and woman kissing and the reason why is because 90+% of people in the UK are straight so how could it seem "no more unusual". My point is that for every time you see two men or two women kissing you'll probably see 90 opposite sex couples kissing.

Because its possible to be straight AND not find it unusual to see a same-sex couple kissing. You don't have to do something yourself to accept it as normal. I don't drink coffee, but I don't get weirded out whenever I see someone drink one.

Doctor Who is a Sci-Fi programme which SHOULD be about the Doctor and his (or her) companions fighting monsters and baddies on distant planets.
Someone's sexuality shouldn't ever come into it in Doctor Who. If sexuality never came into it then that WOULD be a fair representation.

In which case you're proposing characters that are simply stunted and under-developed. Nowhere in successful fiction will you find characters who are written to be deliberately vacant of identity - because that's the opposite of 'character'. They're not some blank slab subservient entirely to a plot that enables it to get from A-B with nothing but exposition to get us there. The journey is made enjoyable and watchable because you want to watch these characters - they're written to be interesting, exciting, emotional, flawed, relatable. Those attributes are only possible when those characters are written to have thoughts and feelings of their own, just like actual people. And also just like actual people, some of them are going to be LGBT. So unless you're pitching a reboot where every companion has to go through initiation at some kind of nunnery, or takes a pledge of absolute celibacy towards anything emotive or fun, this just doesn't work.

Rose without sexuality wouldn't have Mickey and his experience to show us some of her deepest flaws, or her romantic commitment to Ten that was eventually her undoing. Donna without sexuality would never have been in the show at all, as she'd never have possessed the feelings for a man in order to get married in the first place. Amy without sexuality would never have liked nor married Rory, so we basically lose their entire presence. Bill without sexuality would be wondering around some wasteland on a spaceship, her body mutilated, and herself and the Doctor abandoned.

This is a hell of a lot of hurdles to jump over. Raises the question of whether you just have a problem with LGBT people really, doesn't it?

One minute you've got a thread about Philip Schofield coming out as gay and most people are saying "I couldn't care if he's gay, why the big issue" etc.
Then you've got people making an issue about peoples sexuality in DOCTOR WHO of all programmes for God sake.

The fact there was a thread at all, the fact that Philip Schofield's name is still a top trend on Twitter, the fact that it was newsworthy, the fact that journalists still threaten to out people for headlines and profit in 2020, the fact that Theresa May's government tried stopping a gay muslim whistleblower from revealing the avoidant spending of VoteLeave by publicly outing him (causing his family in Pakistan to have to verify their safety status), the fact that the same woman whilst leading the Home Office introduced laws that briefly forced LGBT asylum seekers to validate their claim by producing video evidence of theit sexuality, the fact that I could still be executed in some parts of the world and am still outright illegal in a third of it, the fact people I know have been violently assaulted on the streets of a largely safe city just for holding the hands of someone of the same sex... facts, facts, facts, all of them validating the claim that people do still care quite a lot. Those people in comments sections who claim not to care nonetheless summoned the motivation to click into that thread and post a comment about how much they allegedly don't care. It's a world full of issues, and a world that cares a lot.

Thankfully Doctor Who is much closer to how it should be everwhere. If in doubt, be like Doctor Who.

Chibnall seems very dated in his way of thinking two gay men kissing = ground breaking. Soaps have been doing
it for years now.

The push for a diversity agenda won't go away until it's no longer needed. There'll come a time in the future when a programme will show (for example) two men kissing and it'll seem no more unusual than showing a man and a woman kissing. After all, a few years ago showing a mixed race couple kissing would've ruffled lot of feathers, but not so much now.

It will NEVER look as normal as a man and woman kissing and the reason why is because 90+% of people in the UK are straight so how could it seem "no more unusual". My point is that for every time you see two men or two women kissing you'll probably see 90 opposite sex couples kissing.

If we take your numerical evaluation at face value, it may well be true that 90% of couples seen kissing on TV will be straight, compared to 10% of gay/bisexual couples. That doesn't change my point. The more diversity we see on TV means that eventually viewers won't find either situation unusual. Both will be accepted as NORMAL.